What did the reviewers think of this paper? Personally I find it challenging to read and (at best) very controversial, against many basic working hypotheses in Linguistics. Did you benefit from any of their comments?

Mr. djr33 The comments of the reviewers were highly positive. They did not point out any weakness in the paper.You said that "Personally I find it challenging to read and (at best) very controversial, against many basic working hypotheses in Linguistics". I think, it is because I am trying to define the image in terms of observation and perception, not in terms of its construction.Mr. Zaba, Thanks for your important remark.

I am trying to communicate the site given by you. In the today's material world, everything is possible. Searching of a proper journal is a difficult task. Many journals do not demand the publication fees, but demand membership fees for one year. Some of them have very strict copyright provisions. I am working on it.I will need one more favor from your side. For a while, please forget about the theory. Look at the 'experimental results'. Kindly let me know if these results are convincing or not. Whether the semantic values assigned by me satisfy the meaning of the words or not. If yes ! up to what extend.

In pera no 6, I have clearly explained the method of deriving the meaning of any word. The semantic values are taken from pera no 5. Which are derived from the theory explained in pera no 2, 3, and 4. I feel convincing with the result of the experiment “ It /ɪt/ = visible /ɪ/ occupying /t/ {occupying the visible}”. Are you not? According to the phonosemantics, languages are made of vocal gestures and every word (composition of gestures) has some philosophical meaning. All gestures support some specific universal meaning, which can be understood without learning. Laughing and crying are examples. These meanings are allotted by nature and nature can be analysed in terms of phonemes as shown in the theory.

According to the phonosemantics, languages are made of vocal gestures and every word (composition of gestures) has some philosophical meaning. All gestures support some specific universal meaning, which can be understood without learning. Laughing and crying are examples. These meanings are allotted by nature and nature can be analysed in terms of phonemes as shown in the theory.

I was not intending to discuss the theory. I have already written ... “For a while, please forget about the theory”. I was just asking whether the example {It /ɪt/ = visible /ɪ/ occupying /t/ (occupying the visible)} is convincing or not? If you say no, It is OK for me. I believe that while discussing anything, the word ‘nonsense’ should be avoided.

I was just asking whether the example {It /ɪt/ = visible /ɪ/ occupying /t/ (occupying the visible)} is convincing or not?

But surely you have to admit that it's not possible to accept a result that is devoid of a theory that explains where it came from, right? I mean, many statements that I'm sure we can all agree on are accepted, but if we were asked to judge them while disregarding the motivation, these uncontroversial things would also become impossible to accept. That's not just a case here, but in general.

In the context of your question specifically (putting aside the fact that even considering the purported theory, I would feel the same) I do not understand what it is you're saying with this example. What does it mean? That the word 'it' at some level devolves down to something that occupies space and is visible? What about the hundreds of languages that have words to express the exact same thing? How can that be rationalised if the specific phonetic makeup of the word must be accounted for in a totally different way in nearly every language, while the meaning overall is considered to be a standard translation? That doesn't add up to me. We know how sound changes work in languages and this would seem to suggest that as a sound change happens, the whole lexical element undergoes some sort of change as well? What about numbers? How would a phonosemantic account of numbers across cognates work? Twe/twa/tvö/two/zwei/to/dos/due/dwa/? They all mean the exactly the same thing. When PIE split up into satem/centum languages, did the fundamental nature of 'hundred' change?

I was not intending to discuss the theory. I have already written ... “For a while, please forget about the theory”. I was just asking whether the example {It /ɪt/ = visible /ɪ/ occupying /t/ (occupying the visible)} is convincing or not?

As we've talked about many times, you will have a very hard time finding linguists who find your argument here convincing because you break one of the fundamental tenets of scientific analysis: all of your explanations are post-hoc. You take an already known relationship, and then construct an explanation to justify it. That is fundamentally in conflict with the scientific method.

If your technique is valid, you should be able to do what I've been asking you to do from the very first time you posted: 1) Assemble a "blind" pool of words from a wide assortment of languages (words you don't know the meaning of).2) Predict the semantics of these words using your method.3) Have an objective third-party evaluate your predictions to see if they are more frequently correct than would be expected by chance.

It's that simple. Until you do that, I'm sorry to tell you that you're not doing science.

I was just asking whether the example {It /ɪt/ = visible /ɪ/ occupying /t/ (occupying the visible)} is convincing or not?

But surely you have to admit that it's not possible to accept a result that is devoid of a theory that explains where it came from, right? I mean, many statements that I'm sure we can all agree on are accepted, but if we were asked to judge them while disregarding the motivation, these uncontroversial things would also become impossible to accept. That's not just a case here, but in general.

In the context of your question specifically (putting aside the fact that even considering the purported theory, I would feel the same) I do not understand what it is you're saying with this example. What does it mean? That the word 'it' at some level devolves down to something that occupies space and is visible? What about the hundreds of languages that have words to express the exact same thing? How can that be rationalised if the specific phonetic makeup of the word must be accounted for in a totally different way in nearly every language, while the meaning overall is considered to be a standard translation? That doesn't add up to me. We know how sound changes work in languages and this would seem to suggest that as a sound change happens, the whole lexical element undergoes some sort of change as well? What about numbers? How would a phonosemantic account of numbers across cognates work? Twe/twa/tvö/two/zwei/to/dos/due/dwa/? They all mean the exactly the same thing. When PIE split up into satem/centum languages, did the fundamental nature of 'hundred' change?

I would welcome an answer to such a challenge to the theory.

I don't find this convincing at all.

What sort of new evidence could you find in your exploration of phonosemantic that would convince you that you have made any errors? Or that the meaning judgements you have made are wrong? Or even that some examples you find are more likely right then others? Your hypotheses are unfalsifiable, and unscientific. You have no way of checking if you are wrong. Your hypotheses are post-hoc explanations to fit your observations, and make no predictions, which is unscientific. Your hypotheses fundamentally contradict current ideas about historical linguistics that are well evidenced and explored, and you offer no reason why your hypotheses should replace any of those well founded principles.

Mr. Lx I agree that without an appropriate theory nothing can be explained. My purpose of insisting on a simple example was just to explain myself step by step. Now a question came out from your post.“That the word 'it' at some level devolves down to something that occupies space and is visible? What about the hundreds of languages that have words to express the exact same thing?” The theory suggests that you cannot find any word of “exact same thing”. For example: The Hindi translation of the word is /jǝhǝ/. The semantic value of /jǝhǝ/ is “physical existent /hǝ/ of visible existence /jǝ/” (physically visible). The semantic value of /lo/ (Spanish) is “in the direction /o/ of expanded appearance /l/”. In this way you can see that the practical meaning of the word ‘it’ is the same, but phonosemantic meanings are different. Even if the words are different, they are indicating the same image. In English ‘occupation’ is important, in Spanish ‘appearance’ is important, and in Hindi ‘physical’ is important. The importance is depends on the environment and social values of the country. We can take one more example. The psychological meaning of ‘father’ is “the person who provides approval / security with condition or without any condition”.(1) Chinese [fuxin] /fʊʃɪn/ - accepting unconditional approval /fʊ/ psychological strength /ʃ/ towards /ɪ/ act /n/ {act towards psychological strength of encouragement (acceptance with unconditional approval)}. (2) English [father] /fɑ:ðər/ - unconditionally approvable entity /fɑ:/ submission /ðə/ involvement /r/ {involvement in submission of encouragement (unconditionally approvable entity) }. (3) French [père] /pɛʀ/ - approval with conditions (bonding / protecting) /p/ visibly available /ɛ/ involvement /ʀ/ {involvement in visibly available approval with conditions (bonding/protecting)}. (4) German [vater] /fatər/ - unconditionally approvable entity /fa/ activating /tə/ involvement /r/ {involvement in activating the encouragement (unconditionally approvable entity }. (5) Hindi [pitā] /pɪt̪ɑ/ - towards conditional approval /pɪ/ offering entity /t̪ɑ/ {offering entity towards conditional courage (approval)}.(6) Italian and Spanish [padre] /padre/ - conditionally approvable entity /pa/ specific submission involvement /dre/ {specific submission involvement in conditionally encouragement (approvable entity)}.(7) Japanese [chichi] /ʧɪʧɪ/ - liveliness /ʧ/ towards /ɪ/ liveliness /ʧ/ towards /ɪ/ {towards adding liveliness regularly; providing liveliness to the child}. This phenomenon can be understood by considering two different objects each having 100 different parameters for their naming. Now an observer cannot observe all parameters. There are within three possibilities. (1) If he perceives the common parameters from both of them, he can give them same name. (Same name for different objects)(2) If he perceives different parameters from both of them, he can give them different names. (Different names for different objects)(3) If he perceives the different parameters form a same object, he can give different names to same object. This possibility relates to the above example.The basic theme of the theory is that nature assigns specific semantic values to different phonemes. But nature NEVER assigns any name to any object. Because every object contains infinite number of parameters, these cannot be converted into name. It is the observer who observes the image, and perceives it by filtering out his physical, biological, psychological, and intellectual needs and availabilities. Out of the filtered image he selects a minimum possible name under phonosemantics. A lot of confusion is created because the process of developing ‘words’ was taken place before 70000-100000 years from today. Although there are lot of changes in the original words, but these changes are took place within a specified limit (same group of sounds; refer groups in the theory; refer Grimm’s Law). And this changing has taken place because of change in physical, biological, psychological, and intellectual needs and availabilities.As regards the ‘numbering’ is concerned, I am still in confusion.